Sir John Hall and the Premier.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6725, 15 July 1893, Page 3

Sir John Hall and the Premier.

tw the course of his speech on the Financial Statement, Sir John Hall referred to the charge made against his dead friend, Sir Harry Atkin3on, by fche Premier in relation to what he described in his Auckland speech as " bogus liabilities manufactured for a purpose." Sir John Hall repelled the charge with a warmth and feeling that deeply stirred his party, and created much suppressed excitement in the House. Sir John entreated members to study official papers, and see if what he had said was not borne out by them. The peroration in defence of Sir H. Atkinson was remarkably fine. " If," he said, " the charges had been made by Richard Seddon he would not have thought them decent, but they had been uttered from the high pedestal of the Prime Minister, and that should have made him very careful. He might think these random charges a sm^ill mutter, but he (the Premier) had taken his stand upon a low plane of public morality, and had dragged his office down to the irresponsible utterances of an irresponsible stump orator. Nothing so unworthy, discreditable, and indecent as the charges made against a man who could not answer for himself, fourteen years afterwards, he (Sir John Hall) had never known. The matter ■hould not rest as it was unsubstantiated. The Premier had degraded his office, and he (Sir John) challenged an inquiry. "If he could prore his charges," said Sir John, " let him ; if he cannot, then I call upon him to acknowledge they are wrong. In the name of the man whose memory is revered, whose services will never be forgot, whose character will always be admired, whose personality will always be loved, in the name of justice and fair play, in the name of what is due to his high position, I ask him to either have the manliness to prove his charges, or the candour to withdraw them." One of the most vehement of Sir Sir John's applaudors was the Premier. He seemed to wish it to be. known he would have no difficulty in replying.

The Post states : — The Magistrates' Courts Bill proposes to give Resident Magistrates jurisdiction in cases of libel up to L2OO. This is undoubtedly in opposition to the spirit of reodern English legislation on the subject, the tendency of which is to remit) to a jury much of the power which used to appertain to the Judge to determine what is and what is not a libel. It is also in conflicts with the provisions of the Libel Bill which already has so often passed the Council. That Bill certainly gives Resident Magistrates power to hear libel cases up to LIOO, but only when a Judge remits them to the lower Court se as to save the defendant from the expense ef Supreme Court costs should the action fail and the plaintiff have been unable* to give security for costs. It would be %mosk dangerous thing in small communities to gir* Resident Magistrates the power of dealing with libel cases and to award dam gea up to L2OO. Such cases are of a character that the defendant should not in any case bo deprived of the right of asking the verdict of a jury on the a leged injury. We trust libel will be removed from the list of actions in which original jurisdiotion is proposed to be conferred »>n Resident Magistrates. A movement is on feot in Wellington to form an Association for beautifying the «ifcy by trot planting, etc.